Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedee.
This reverts commit 749581d21f.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6.
Since LICM has now unconditionally moved to MemorySSA based form, all
passes that run in same LPM as LICM need to preserve MemorySSA (i.e. our
downstream pipeline).
Added loop-mssa to all tests and perform -verify-memoryssa within
LoopPredication itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108724
This reverts commit r365260 which broke the following tests:
Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cfi-mfcall.cpp
Clang :: CodeGenObjC/ubsan-nullability.m
LLVM :: Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/pr36032.ll
llvm-svn: 365284
Without this, we have the unfortunate property that tests are dependent on the order of operads passed the CreateOr and CreateAnd functions. In actual usage, we'd promptly optimize them away, but it made tests slightly more verbose than they should have been.
llvm-svn: 365260
The bug is that I didn't check whether the operand of the invariant_loads were themselves invariant. I don't know how this got missed in the patch and review. I even had an unreduced test case locally, and I remember handling this case, but I must have lost it in one of the rebases. Oops.
llvm-svn: 358688
The purpose of this patch is to eliminate a pass ordering dependence between LoopPredication and LICM. To understand the purpose, consider the following snippet of code inside some loop 'L' with IV 'i'
A = _a.length;
guard (i < A)
a = _a[i]
B = _b.length;
guard (i < B);
b = _b[i];
...
Z = _z.length;
guard (i < Z)
z = _z[i]
accum += a + b + ... + z;
Today, we need LICM to hoist the length loads, LoopPredication to make the guards loop invariant, and TrivialUnswitch to eliminate the loop invariant guard to establish must execute for the next length load. Today, if we can't prove speculation safety, we'd have to iterate these three passes 26 times to reduce this example down to the minimal form.
Using the fact that the array lengths are known to be invariant, we can short circuit this iteration. By forming the loop invariant form of all the guards at once, we remove the need for LoopPredication from the iterative cycle. At the moment, we'd still have to iterate LICM and TrivialUnswitch; we'll leave that part for later.
As a secondary benefit, this allows LoopPred to expose peeling oppurtunities in a much more obvious manner. See the udiv test changes as an example. If the udiv was not hoistable (i.e. we couldn't prove speculation safety) this would be an example where peeling becomes obviously profitable whereas it wasn't before.
A couple of subtleties in the implementation:
- SCEV's isSafeToExpand guarantees speculation safety (i.e. let's us expand at a new point). It is not a precondition for expansion if we know the SCEV corresponds to a Value which dominates the requested expansion point.
- SCEV's isLoopInvariant returns true for expressions which compute the same value across all iterations executed, regardless of where the original Value is located. (i.e. it can be in the loop) This implies we have a speculation burden to prove before expanding them outside loops.
- invariant_loads and AA->pointsToConstantMemory are two cases that SCEV currently does not handle, but meets the SCEV definition of invariance. I plan to sink this part into SCEV once this has baked for a bit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60093
llvm-svn: 358684
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
LoopPredication was replacing the original condition, but leaving the instructions to compute the old conditions around. This would get cleaned up by other passes of course, but we might as well do it eagerly. That also makes the test output less confusing.
llvm-svn: 357406
As highlighted by tests, if one of the operands is loop variant, but guaranteed to have the same value on all iterations, we have a missed oppurtunity.
llvm-svn: 357403
Roman Lebedev